A) The Paris Agreement allows all of its members to choose of their own accord how much money (if any) they contribute to the Green Climate Fund.

B) Even if a given country agrees to pay a certain amount of money to the GCF, the Paris Agreement has no penalty or mechanism that prevents said country from withholding their money when the payment is due.

and, C) GCF money isn't just handed out to the governments of developing nations; it is independently allocated directly to initiatives in developing nations to mitigate carbon emissions and convert to clean/renewable energy technology, effectively cutting out the country's government as middle-man once the time comes for the money to be allocated.

reply

[deleted]

1 up, 1 reply

Maybe you need to find and read the reports of the major countries that are demanding they receive billions of dollars before they start to resuce their pollution, and then not guaranteeing they will do anything when they receive the money.

Actually, all major countries that are currently part of the Paris Agreement are already working to reduce their carbon emissions, and have been for years now. The budgets they have proposed do not demand that the GCF cover the costs; they simply state (in terms of currency) the amount of resources they need to achieve their optimal goals (which will ultimately be beyond their reach without some kind of financial aid). The primary assistance they need from other nations is in the form of technology transfer. And, (as I have already stated,) the GCF independently allocates funds directly to initiatives in developing nations to mitigate carbon emissions and convert to clean/renewable energy technology. It doesn't just give money to other countries and hope they spend it on reducing carbon emissions; it pays for the carbon emission mitigation programs directly. Requests from countries like Ethiopia, which asked for funds paid directly to their governments as compensation for their efforts, have been rejected by default. And again, the United States technically isn't required to pay any money into the GCF in order to be a part of the Paris Agreement. It gets to pay as little money as it wants, whenever it wants, without any obligations.

reply

[deleted]

1 up, 1 reply

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate-agreement-shares-nations-wealth/ This is what I was reading. out of 192 countries that has signed, only a handful may have stated their reduction wasn't dependent on getting money. However for the rest, at least 420 Billion dollars is needed for them to do anything, and even then it isn't guaranteed. With what some countries are proposing in decreases, by the time they do it, it will actually be an increase. If we are not contingent on needing money to reduce our emissions ourselves, what benefit is there for the US to be a part of this agreement?

I've read this article before, and in fact assumed based on the nature of your comments that this was your source. It is a blatant mischaracterization of the actual agreement, citing incomplete facts in the most vague possible contexts. Yes, most minor countries require at least some funding to COMPLETE their ultimate long term goals, but to say that they require hundreds of billions of dollars "for them to do anything" is not true. They've already begun to reduce their carbon emission, and some countries, like India, are already well ahead of where they expected to be right now. And the claim that "It isn't guaranteed" that they will do anything is a misled conclusion based on the false assumption that the GCF simply hands over its money to the governments of countries that ask for them. In fact, every budget proposal comes with a specific list of all the conversions to cleaner energy they want to make, and states exact reasons for how and why funding is necessary for certain mitigation initiatives. Additionally, it's not as if developing countries are indifferent to the Paris Agreement and are only reducing their emissions at the request of other countries; each plan they have proposed asserts the ways that climate change will (and has already) hurt their countries' economies and living conditions, as well as the data behind these assertions. As for some countries' decreases "actually being an increase", this description is a misunderstanding of how carbon emission mitigation actually works. The decrease being proposed by some countries (such as India) is not a decrease in absolute amount of carbon emissions; it's about a decrease in the inevitable increase. Countries like India have a rapidly increasing energy demand, which they have neither the time nor the funds to fill entirely with clean energy. The increase in per capita emissions is inevitable given these enormous energy demands. Their goal has been to create a limited (and absolutely crucial) reduction in how much carbon they emit as they expand their energy grids to meet rising demands. Now concerning the question of why it's important for the United States to remain in the deal. The question is an important one, and one I hope anyone who supports the Paris Agreement has asked themselves, and not dismissed out of blind devotion to the Agreement. Sadly though, I do not have the time to answer this question right now, as I'm on a tight schedule. But I will be sure to answer it as soon as I can :)

reply

[deleted]

1 up, 1 reply

Considering I don't see any sources for your claims, there is absolutely no way I can confirm a thing that you stated, and therefore your argument is invalid. The answer to the question is actually quite simple, since we don't require money to reduce our own emissions, there is no real reason why we should be involved in the agreement. Period.

My sources are the official published Paris Agreement document and the Climate Focus Client Brief on the Paris Agreement V (which is primarily concerned with the GCF), as well as the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (or INDC) documents of each nation that has submitted one. All of these are publicly accessible and only a quick Google search away from anyone who wishes to access them. But unless you are willing to take the many hours I have taken to read them all, your just going to have to take my word for it; in such case, just know that these are my sources.

Now, on to why it's important for the US to remain in the deal even if it does not intend to give or receive funds. The primary purpose of the Paris Agreement is to provide a comprehensive list of goals which each nation concurrently intends to reach in order to prevent us from exceeding our "carbon budget," which is the maximum amount of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted before the average global temperature increases by another 2 degrees Centigrade, a crucial tipping point for the Earth's climate. For each nation to determine how they must commit to mitigating carbon emissions, in order to reach a mutually defined internationally determined goal in the most efficient way possible, depends on what other nations intend to or are capable of doing. The United States, as the largest per capita pollutant in the world, is an important piece in this puzzle. Without the United States listing it's intended commitments to carbon emission mitigation in accordance with the Paris Agreement, and providing periodic updates on its progress, it's far more problematic for the other nations in the agreement to plan their own initiatives. It's detrimental the plans of all other nations participating in the Agreement.

reply

[deleted]

1 up, 1 reply

So I am just going to end with this. You said that hundreds of billions of dollars won't be needed for the countries to do anything? I only need to pull 1 document (that you listed) that states otherwise. http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/India/1/INDIA%20INDC%20TO%20UNFCCC.pdf This here is the India INDC. Page 31, "Preliminary estimates indicate that India would need around USD 206 billion (at 2014-15 prices) between 2015 and 2030 for implementing adaptation actions in agriculture, forestry, fisheries infrastructure, water resources and ecosystems." It then goes on to say "Estimates by NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India) indicate that the mitigation activities for moderate low carbon development would cost around USD 834 billion till 2030 at 2011 prices." and "India's climate actions have so far been largely financed from domestic resources. A substantial scaling up of the climate action plans would require greater resources. A detailed and full scale assessment of international climate finance needs will be finalized at a later stage and would depend on the gap between actual cost of implementation of India’s plans and what can be made available from domestic sources. While this would evolve over time, a preliminary estimate suggests that at least USD 2.5 trillion (at 2014-15 prices) will be required for meeting India's climate change actions between now and 2030."

It didn't take hours of research to find this, and I even used your own sources in order to do so. Now logic dictates that if even just 1 country is requesting money like this, others are doing so as well. It is even stating that the changes they are proposing they are going to do is dependent on these finances, all of which are outside of what they are able to provide themselves, and even states based on today's prices and we know that these prices will only go up. There here is enough to say that the article I was willing to post is more accurate than what you were trying to say about the articles you were unwilling to post.

It is a well known fact that multiple countries have violated UN agreements at one time or another. So just because they signed a document stating that they are willing to do something, that doesn't mean they are going to abide by it.
***To Be Continued***

reply

[deleted]

1 up, 2 replies

***Continued***
Even if we were to back out of the Paris Agreement, it is just as easy for the President to say ***The United States of America voluntarily pledges to reduces our emissions by X% by the year 2030 in order for everyone else to determine how much they need to reduce themselves." This now gives them the number you say they need and protects us from being "asked" to "give" hundreds of billions of dollars to other nations that are saying they need it in order to meet their agreement. It doesn't require us to sign any agreement and protects our future. As far as The United States being the largest per capita on GHG emmisions, according to https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters that belongs to Canada.

Just an FYI, NEVER tell me to take your word for it. That is never a good thing to do. Whenever someone says I should just take their word for it, that is an immediate red-flagged BS meter that goes off.

The GCF provides finances to individual projects for mitigation and adaptation through a series of approved Accredited Entities on a need-to basis. Each project must be first approved and then monitored for it's effectiveness and accountability. These links should provide all the information you need to know.

And yes, each developed party that signs the agreement pledges a volunteered amount of funds to assist developing countries. The US has already filled in that criterion by paying 1 billion dollars to the GCF. Under the Obama administration, it had originally pledged 3 billion, but the Paris Agreement lacks any form of enforcement or liability mechanism. There is no penalty for withholding the rest of the money offered, even if we wish to remain part of the Agreement. So the US need not pay anything in order to remain part of it.

[deleted]

0 ups

So the GCF provides funding, but where do you think they will be getting the majority of their funding from? Do you honestly believe that the trillions of dollars needed for the next 13 years will be coming from private sectors, or is it more plausible that it will have to come from developed countries?

You keep saying it is volutary, but it isn't. The documents as of right not may not regulate how much developed countries will have to pay in, but it is a requirement for these developed countries to pay in. It clearly states that in the agreement. It may not state right off that there will be penalties for not paying, but when money stops going to the GCF do you honestly think they won't ammend the agreement to add penalties? It is common sense that of the money isn't going to be there to fund the projects that one way or another they will get the money.

I am done dealing with you on this. I have already showed you on your own documents where you have been wrong. Continuing any further is pointless. There is not going to be any benefit for this country to be a part of this agreement, and will most likely only harm us financially in the future. We already have a massive national debt, and I can see that it will only get worse because of this.

First of all, I didn't ask you to take my word for it, I said that you would have to if you were unwilling read the sources. But thankfully, you were willing to read them, which is great. Now, let me be clear; I did not deny that many billions of dollars would ultimately be funded to emission mitigation/adaptation initiatives in developing countries. However, your statement that they could not do anything until hundreds of billions have been paid, with no guarantee that they will follow through, is false. Many of the things which India proposed, for example, can be completed with zero outside funding. Additionally, the hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars that will be provided don’t have to be paid before they can do anything. It is the ultimate amount that might have been spent by the end of the next two decades. And again, the money is not presented up front. So while there's no guarantee that a given country will follow through on its goals just because it signed the document, it is still the case that if they don't, no money will be paid. And concerning Canada being the largest per capita carbon emitter in the world, you are correct; I meant to say the US was "one of the largest." I apologize for my mistake, and appreciate your correction. Now, you also asked why the president couldn't just pull out of the agreement and say, "The United States of America voluntarily pledges to reduce our emissions by X% by the year 2030 in order for everyone else to determine how much they need to reduce themselves." Well, that's the thing; THAT'S ALL THE PARIS AGREEMENT IS! That's all the Paris agreement requires of the United States, and it's exactly what the president is refusing to do. Your proposal for what the President could do even if he does pull out of the Agreement is the same thing as what staying in the Agreement does. And again, all payments made by the US as part of the agreement would be voluntary; the Agreement does not require that we pay anything if we don't want to.

[deleted]

1 up

"But unless you are willing to take the many hours I have taken to read them all, your just going to have to take my word for it" Essentially what you are saying here is that if I am unwilling to look at anything (which you were still incapable of providing a single link to any information) then I would be required to believe that your information was more accurate than the article I provided.

Apparently you are incapable of reading, because it was the majority of what India said they could do that requires outside funding to be able to do it. If they don't have the money, how do you expect them to start? And even if they were to start, and then got money after a certain point, what is to say they would continue? Why don't you link something that states they only get money if they complete what they said they were going to do? Is it because that doesn't exist? What the Paris Agreement does state in Article 9 Paragraph 1 is that Developed country Parties (like the United States) SHALL PROVIDE financial resources to assist developing country Parties... Paragraph 2 states Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily. In the first part of the agreement, the section that covers finances states: prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries. So it does state we are required to pay to be a part of this Agreement. I am sure that some place there is a penalty for not paying what we are suppose to. Being a part of this agreement puts us in a financial obligation we shouldn't have to be in. Maybe you need to go back and re-read your documents, because everything I have read is stating you are wrong about it being voluntary for the United States to pay. If you are going to continue to state otherwise, it is time that you start linking the documents you are going to reference and state where to find what you are reading. At this point, your word means absolutely nothing here as I have shown nothing you have stated holds any water.